- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: King Charles confirms plans for lifetime smoking ban in the UK
Posted on 11/9/23 at 6:00 am to TrueLefty
Posted on 11/9/23 at 6:00 am to TrueLefty
The is the logical conclusion of universal healthcare.
Why would you allow smoking, junk food, etc if you want government to pay for your healthcare? Can’t have it both ways.
Why would you allow smoking, junk food, etc if you want government to pay for your healthcare? Can’t have it both ways.
This post was edited on 11/9/23 at 6:01 am
Posted on 11/9/23 at 6:24 am to RebelExpress38
quote:
The is the logical conclusion of universal healthcare.
Why would you allow smoking, junk food, etc if you want government to pay for your healthcare? Can’t have it both ways
Actually, what it reflects is half measures (one way or the other) don't work.
The push against smoking and certain foods, plus diet and exercise, has extended life expectancies. But the costs of that (longer on SS, more medical treatment [and more expensive] for Medicare, increased instances of dementia/alzheimers, more people in hurting homes) tax the system.
You either let people indulge in their suicidal vices to thin the herd, or you completely prohibit them, to reduce longer term costs.
Posted on 11/9/23 at 7:01 am to RebelExpress38
quote:
The is the logical conclusion of universal healthcare. Why would you allow smoking, junk food, etc if you want government to pay for your healthcare? Can’t have it both ways.
Now do a cost/benefit analysis of end-of-life care for grandma. Universal healthcare ain’t paying for that shite either. Instead, a competitive marketplace would reward health lifestyles and punish non-healthy lifestyles. No need for the gov’t to get involved at all.
Posted on 11/9/23 at 8:58 am to RebelExpress38
You’re saw this with the soda tax, but controlling sugar intake would be a logically connected push.
People are cutting their own throats by supporting these rules. It won’t end. There’s no point where they’ll stop restricting your freedoms. And they will be expanded to things you like or care about.
People are cutting their own throats by supporting these rules. It won’t end. There’s no point where they’ll stop restricting your freedoms. And they will be expanded to things you like or care about.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)